Press freedom vs. reputational damage: when does a lawsuit against a journalist become a SLAPP?

A politician may sue a journalist for slander and defamation, but the threshold for success is particularly high. In a Feb. 12, 2026 ruling, the court confirmed that investigative journalism about the conduct of authority figures serves a broad debate of public interest. However, when proceedings are ‘manifestly unreasonable’ and have an intimidating effect (chilling effect), the plaintiff risks a severe financial penalty even if there is no formal abuse of law.

The facts and legal context

In October 2024, the journal published Wilfried an extensive portrait of Claude Eerdekens, then mayor of Andenne. The article, titled “Le vieux fauve d'Andenne”, was based on years of investigation and dozens of testimonies. In it, the journalist not only described his political career, but also reported a “toxic management style” and alleged sexual transgressive behavior.

The mayor, believing that his honor and good name had been tarnished and that journalistic deontology had been violated, sued the journalist. He demanded damages and the publication of the verdict. Interestingly, the City of Andenne also initially joined the claim, but later withdrew.

The journalist argued that she was acting in good faith, pursuing a legitimate public interest purpose, and that the proceedings exhibited characteristics of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation): a lawsuit meant to intimidate and silence critical voices.

The decision

The Court of First Instance in Namur on Feb. 12, 2026, dismissed all claims of the mayor. The judge ruled as follows:

• Freedom of speech prevails: As a public figure, a politician must show a higher degree of tolerance, especially when it comes to his behavior as an authority figure.
• Factual basis: Although many sources were anonymous (protected by source secrecy), the journalist had at least one non-anonymous source who confirmed similar facts. This provided sufficient “factual basis” for the serious allegations.
• Increased litigation fee: Although the court did not explicitly label the claim as “aggravated and reckless” (abuse of rights), it did consider the situation “manifestly unreasonable.” Because of the chilling effect (deterrent effect) on press freedom, the mayor was ordered to pay an increased litigation fee of €4,000.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This verdict is an important precedent in the evolution of Belgian jurisprudence regarding press freedom and SLAPP cases.

1. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR.

At the heart of the dispute is the trade-off between the right to reputation (Art. 8 ECHR) and freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR). The court confirms the settled case law of the ECHR (e.g. Lingens t. Austria and Drousiotis t. Cyprus): politicians knowingly expose themselves to public scrutiny. The judge emphasized that even facts from private life can be relevant to public debate when they say something about the integrity of a mandatary.

2. Source secrecy and burden of proof

A crucial aspect in this ruling is the treatment of anonymous sources. The mayor demanded the release of recordings, which the court rejected based on Article 21 of the Code of journalistic deontology. Of legal interest, the court ruled that anonymous testimony alone may be insufficient, but the corroboration by one identifiable source (in this case, a city council member) provided the journalist with a sufficient factual basis to publish the anonymous allegations.

3. The ambiguous fight against SLAPPs

The ruling illustrates the current split in Belgian law pending the full implementation of the European anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069). The court recognizes the chilling effect and the disproportionate nature of the claim, but just does not legally label the claim as an abuse of rights. This leads to a paradox: the claim is “not abusive” but it does create a “manifestly unreasonable situation.” Via Section 1022 of the Judicial Code this is solved by increasing the litigation fee, which acts as a de facto sanction without the heavy burden of proof of agonizing and reckless litigation.

What this specifically means

This judgement has direct implications for various actors in the media landscape and politics:

• For Journalists: The ruling is supportive. It confirms that you may publish serious allegations based on anonymous sources, provided you conduct a thorough investigation and have at least one verifiable element or witness who confirms the pattern. Documentation (such as the 856 minutes of recordings in this case) is essential.
• For politicians and public figures: The threshold for successfully prosecuting a journalist is extremely high. Filing a lawsuit can backfire: you risk not only losing the case, but also being ordered to pay heavy attorney fees for creating a ‘deterrent effect.
• For victims and sources: This ruling shows that source secrecy holds up in court. Your anonymity can be guaranteed by the journalist without legally undermining the credibility of the article, as long as there is sufficient other evidence.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is a SLAPP procedure?
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It is a lawsuit designed not to seek justice, but to intimidate, charge and silence critics (such as journalists or activists).

Can a journalist just publish rumors?
No. A journalist has a duty to investigate. There must be a sufficient “factual basis” for accusations. However, for value judgments (calling someone “dominant” or “toxic”), the burden of proof is lighter than for factual accusations.

As a source, can I remain anonymous in a lawsuit?
Yes. In Belgium, journalists enjoy a source secrecy protected by law. The judge cannot force a journalist to reveal his sources unless there is an immediate danger to the physical integrity of persons.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Namur court sends a powerful message: the judiciary in Belgium watches over press freedom and does not hesitate to financially punish proceedings that smell of intimidation. For public figures, this means that critical, well-researched journalism - however painful - must be tolerated in a democratic society.